Takahashi FSQs; cheaper than you think?

[ollypenrice]

Here's a quick calculation, though feel free to check my sums; the Tak FSQ85 provides a flat field of 1519.76 square mm and costs £2,998.

The Esprit 80 with flattener gives a flat field of 854 square mm and costs £1109.

Therefore the price per square mm in the FSQ85 is £1.97 and in the Esprit 80 it's £1.30. While the price of the Tak is about three times that of the Esprit, the price per unit real estate covered is more like 1.5 times.

What about the Esprit 100 versus Tak FSQ106? Aha! Now this IS remarkable...

Tak FSQ106, 88mm circle, costs £3924 (with rings) making £0.65 per square mm.

Esprit 100, 42mm circle, costs £1839 making that £3.01 per square mm.

Yes folks, we have just established that the Tak is less than a quarter of the price of the Esprit per unit flat field provided. 

Of course, how this really plays out depends on what camera chips are available if you were thinking of pitting a tandem Esprit rig against a solo Tak 106 one. The Tak will cover full frame or even the 36x36 chip but the Esprit won't. But it can cover the 8300.

Don't take this as being more than a fun excercise, but I do think it's an interesting result. And be warned that my maths is lousy!

Olly

[JohnC64]

The Esprit 80 with flattener gives a flat field of 854 square mm 

Hopefully

You just have to watch out for the cost of the filters to cover the full frame sensor

[pete_l]

All very interesting Olly - and as you say: a playful account.

But how much are you paying to take deep, compensated, stacked and processed images of all the black nothingness around your target - and how much of the image is of the actual target itself? We could probably scare ourselves witless (though some say I'm already half-way there) by calculating the cost per pixel of astronomical target.

The key is to match the focal length, image circle, camera and (yes) mount with the size and properties of the targets that interest you.

[ollypenrice]

Black nothingness? Where would that be?

 

Or best of all, the mighty Fabian Neyer's.... http://www.starpointing.com/ccd/ngc869_ngc884.html

lly

[russ.will]

Here's a quick calculation, though feel free to check my sums; the Tak FSQ85 provides a flat field of 1519.76 square mm and costs £2,998.

The Esprit 80 with flattener gives a flat field of 854 square mm and costs £1109.

Therefore the price per square mm in the FSQ85 is £1.97 and in the Esprit 80 it's £1.30. While the price of the Tak is about three times that of the Esprit, the price per unit real estate covered is more like 1.5 times.

What about the Esprit 100 versus Tak FSQ106? Aha! Now this IS remarkable...

Tak FSQ106, 88mm circle, costs £3924 (with rings) making £0.65 per square mm.

Esprit 100, 42mm circle, costs £1839 making that £3.01 per square mm.

Yes folks, we have just established that the Tak is less than a quarter of the price of the Esprit per unit flat field provided. 

Of course, how this really plays out depends on what camera chips are available if you were thinking of pitting a tandem Esprit rig against a solo Tak 106 one. The Tak will cover full frame or even the 36x36 chip but the Esprit won't. But it can cover the 8300.

Don't take this as being more than a fun excercise, but I do think it's an interesting result. And be warned that my maths is lousy!

Olly

Have you considered going into marketing?

That's a bit like buying three for the price of two when you only needed one? Cheaper per unit yes, but not less expenditure.

Russell

[FLO]

Your response to the Esprit 80 and 100 launch is interesting Olly

It was inevitable the new Skywatcher triplets would rattle some cages (the Evostar ED doublets did when they were launched) but I don't think you need be concerned. Actually, I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction. Takahashi are in the luxury goods market, Skywatcher are not (yet). To own a Takahashi you need to be relatively affluent and the affluent want to distinguish themselves in some way from others. Few things can set you apart at a star party more quickly than a Takahashi telescope. That, and their undeniable high optical quality, will ensure a loyal following for some time to come. 

HTH, 

Steve 

[ollypenrice]

Have you considered going into marketing?

That's a bit like buying three for the price of two when you only needed one? Cheaper per unit yes, but not less expenditure.

Russell

While my post is playful it does invite us to consider that the two scopes (on paper) are similar in aperture, focal length and, therefore, F ratio. But they are not alike in terms of flat field, the Taks being a very long way ahead. Put the information on the table and let the customer choose, but do away with mis-information asserting parity between the two specs.

Anyway my purpose in posting is to receive lots of bottles of single malt this Christmas from FSQ owners grateful for my ingenius, spouse-appeasing proof that they saved thousands in buying their scopes. (Curiously poor response so far. Ungrateful lot.)

Olly

[ollypenrice]

Your response to the Esprit 80 and 100 launch is interesting Olly

It was inevitable the new Skywatcher triplets would rattle some cages (the Evostar ED doublets did when they were launched) but I don't think you need be concerned. Actually, I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction. Takahashi are in the luxury goods market, Skywatcher are not (yet). To own a Takahashi you need to be relatively affluent and the affluent want to distinguish themselves in some way from others. Few things can set you apart at a star party more quickly than a Takahashi telescope. That, and their undeniable high optical quality, will ensure a loyal following for some time to come. 

HTH, 

Steve 

Cage?

I have certainly met the 'luxury goods' Tak owners, yes, but that doesn't describe them all and certainly doesn't describe me! Or Tom. (Nor does 'affluent.' Not by a mile.) The 'Luxury Tak' types are great, actually, because Tak feed them enough new models to provide plenty of nice used ones for the likes of us. I was a bit stunned by John's first light but if the chip spacing is out by 20mm then we can hope for a happy ending.

Seriously I'm all for the Esprit and hope it will be good. Tim's big one is, I suspect, better corrected than my TEC for imaging, based on what I've seen posted.

Regarding this post, I did a similar calculation last year and found that the £18,000 36x36mm Apogoee CCD in fact cost the same per square mm as the Atik 314L. Another surprise, no?

Olly

[JohnC64]

mmmm - Another way to look at it is what percentage of the beautifully aligned flattened  photons are landing on the sensor.

With a canon 1100D with a sensor size of 22.1 * 14.8 mm (327.1mm^2)  utilises 38% of the flattened area on an Esprit 80 (854mm^2)
With a Atik 11002  with a sensorsize of  36.1 * 24 (866.4 mm^2) utilises 14% of the flattened area on the Tak 106 (6082mm^2 = WOW!!!)

So Olly your only using 14% of the capability of  your scope  - definite proof that you need to upgrade your camera chip (And if your other half buys this, one of those bottles of Malt from the Tak owners needs to come my way   )

Its amazing what you can prove with a bit of maths

John




 

[ollypenrice]

Hey, I know. Even going to the 36mm square chip would be the tip of the iceberg. But my well used second hand 106 only cost £2K so I can squander those millimetres casually.

I don't think your chances of a free bottle of malt are any better than mine, John!

Olly

[ollypenrice]

Hey, I know. Even going to the 36mm square chip would be the tip of the iceberg. But my well used second hand 106 only cost £2K so I can squander those millimetres casually.

I don't think your chances of a free bottle of malt are any better than mine, John!

Olly

But wait, there's hope! Grinde just clicked a 'like' button and I'll be seeing him fairly soon!

Olly

[kirkster501]

The Espirit does look nice.  But I think I will treat myself to a once-in-a-lifetime scope like the FSQ-85.  Some nice results from the Espirit though.  Very nice.  The scope looks the business as well.

[kirkster501]

mmmm - Another way to look at it is what percentage of the beautifully aligned flattened  photons are landing on the sensor.

With a canon 1100D with a sensor size of 22.1 * 14.8 mm (327.1mm^2)  utilises 38% of the flattened area on an Esprit 80 (854mm^2)

With a Atik 11002  with a sensorsize of  36.1 * 24 (866.4 mm^2) utilises 14% of the flattened area on the Tak 106 (6082mm^2 = WOW!!!)

So Olly your only using 14% of the capability of  your scope  - definite proof that you need to upgrade your camera chip (And if your other half buys this, one of those bottles of Malt from the Tak owners needs to come my way   )

Its amazing what you can prove with a bit of maths

John

You can make any statistic say whatever you like. Politicians do it all the time! Lies, damn lies....

[ollypenrice]

You can make any statistic say whatever you like. Politicians do it all the time! Lies, damn lies....

Well you can, but in this case the facts are the facts.

The one I like is death rate. It seems to me that the death rate is always 100%...

Olly 

[Earl]

regardless of anything I still really do think you need to be using a 383

[ollypenrice]

regardless of anything I still really do think you need to be using a 383

I can see the point but they're a bit sluggish for my taste. Maybe not from QSI.

Olly

[Earl]

I can see the point but they're a bit sluggish for my taste. Maybe not from QSI.

Olly

Spare kidney?

[Earl]

I will have to also say that owning a Tak is not about been affluent its about wanting a scope that works to the expected level.

But at the same time I have not owned , say Borg, Pentax or TMB but have a feeling they also fall into the same.

[perfrej]

Any particular brand, Olly? Lagavulin, Talisker, Ardbeg, or perhaps a Macallan 1940?

I don't drink the stuff much myself, but Mark has treated me to a few gems, most notably in the Karlsberger bar in Longyearbyen, Svalbard - excellent selection there.

On a serious note, comparing scopes is difficult. I think most of us have, at some point, taken a wrong turn and realised that the real estate of illumination is simply not there in the product we bought. Been there, done that... Nowadys it is one of my prime concerns. Need to fill that upcoming 29050 (drool)

/per

[dmahon]

What filters do you use to cover an 88mm imaging circle?

[perfrej]

You only have to cover the sensor so unmounted 50mm square does nicely!

/per

[swag72]

......To own a Takahashi you need to be relatively affluent and the affluent want to distinguish themselves in some way from others.

It think it's quite a shame if people really do think that people are affluent just because they have a Takahashi - I most certainly am not. As for distinguishing themselves from others - I think the majority of owners buy them for their excellent optics, which I can vouch for, not because they want to be distinguished from anyone else. I would like to be known for my images, not what scope I used to collect them.

My evidence for this is that a few people at least who have got Tak's have done so quietly and in an unassuming way, not boasting about it as the post seems to infer, although perhaps I have been wrong in my assumption.

[Davey-T]

But have you worked out the equipment cost per hour of imaging achieved  in one year in the UK ?  . Think mines about £100.00

Dave

[Gina]

That sounds pretty low

[ollypenrice]

That sounds pretty low

Quote of the week!!

Olly.